Spin, for the unobservant

What the -- !?? There's an excited discussion at FD this morning, precipitated by a CBS poll that indicates McCain and Obama are tied:

SHRIEEEK! McCain closed the gap!!?? The excitement spiraled into arguments about the comparative merits of polls, Kerry/Bush polls from 2004, McCain's stellar performance in this week's debate, and the JoeThePlumber Effect. Hope... Yes! we! can! Except...

Economist poll makes the case for Obama

The economy is the number one issue in elections on both sides of the border this year, but particularly stateside, where taxpayers are being forced at metaphorical gunpoint to fork over $700 billion to Wall Street's rotten extortionist thugs. There's no getting away from the economy as an election issue -- the only thing left to do is spin, baby, spin.

Case in point: the wingnuts at ProWomanProLife say "Look over here! Bright shiny thing!" and point to a negative book about Obama that was recently reviewed by the Economist Magazine. From the review:

"If Mr Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn’t very much. Instead, as Mr Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat."

Ohmygodwhatthefuck!!! The Economist + Obama + bad = Sarah Palin John McCain for preznit!!!

However, that was a book review, not an editorial. But it's a fair question: where do the Economist Magazine and economists in general stand on the candidates and their ability to right the financial ship of state? A full frontal boot to the GOP nads is delivered by their poll of economists:

What's that? Did I hear an "OOF!"?? You betcha I did!! Bumdiggity! *WINK*

Wingnuts will be quick to point out the last category, wherein over 40% of the respondents are self-identified Democrats. But almost as many said they identified with "neither" party, which means they're disillusioned former GOPers... a group that grows larger by the day.

UPDATE: While we're on the subject of Economics, and who isn't these days, how about a little Keating Economics?

Panic, MASSIVE POLL-style

After her long-winded defense of phone-spam polling on Monday, SUZANNE's been thinkin'. Today, rather than defend the KLRVU poll with backup data on its methodology, she tries to poke holes in the methodology of the Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid polls that found 2/3 of Canadians were good with the Morgentaler OC. Too much weighting, or not enough. Over-representation of pro-abortion demographics. Then she concludes:

""The media and the left-wing bloggers accepted these polls without question, without looking at the methodology.""

Gee... I wonder why that might be. Ya think the reason we "accepted these polls without question" might be because we could find Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid in the phone book, or on the internet, or on some roster of polling companies, or through Industry Canada, in the event that we did have questions? Or because Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid are proven pollsters with years of experience? Or because the questions asked were unbiased? Or... I could go on, but you get the gist.

SUZANNE still doesn't seem to get that, as John Counsell said on his radio show last week, the stats mean nothing if it's not a legitimate polling company. And that has certainly not been proven. Although a website was cobbled together under duress, it still doesn't even have its own phone number, still sharing an unpublished number with LaserCut Engraving and who knows what other little cottage-industry businesses.

There's nothing inherently wrong with hiring a guy to do some kind of a poll using phone spam technology. Just don't trumpet the results as if they were anywhere near being on the same playing field as those produced by legitimate pollsters with long-standing reputations and business portfolios. They're not. That's been put to bed. KLRVU itself does a great job of explaining why we shouldn't believe their polls.

But while we're still on this increasingly tiresome subject, something that hasn't been put to rest is the question of how CLC hooked up with KLRVU in the first place. It took us days to come up with information on the company -- how did CLC manage to find them, with no phone number, no website, no listing in any business roster? Or did they just dial random phone numbers until they came up with a "polling company" that just happened to be run by the brother of one of their pet anti-abortion MPs? Serendipity?

Canada is an adamantly pro-choice country. Get over it and stop trying to prove otherwise with "polls" that are no more than lame-ass propaganda.

UPDATE: Someone from Angus Reid weighs in at SUZANNE's:

"Suzanne,

Please don't fall into the "bigger is better" trap. Angus Reid has conducted surveys on a wide variety of topics (including two that showed support for Bill C-484) and called 21 of 22 parties within the margin of error in five provincial elections using its online panel.

It's not a quesiton of contacting 13,000+ Canadians or dialing a million numbers. It's about the quality of the sample and the options available to respondents.

From a methodological standpoint, the problems with what we have seen from the KLRVU poll are:

a) No breakdowns for age, gender, household income, education or federal political preference. All we have are percentages of respondents who said "No". We can't tell if only men, only women, or even if minors answered this poll.

b) Apparently, no "Not sure" option. A poll must give a respondent the option to state that he or she does not know, and the pollster must register these answers.

c) Misleading press release. The question used is: "Do you believe abortionist Henry Morgentaler deserves the Order of Canada?" Yet the press release headline reads: "56% Oppose Morgentaler Order of Canada." A person may feel that Morgentaler does not deserve the Order, but that is not the same as actually voicing opposition to the fact that he will get it.
MCG | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 10:39 am | # "

Sounds reasonable. Shorter SUZANNE's response:

"LALALALALALA I can't heeeeeeear yooooooou, Angus Reid Pollster!"

Are we done here? Yep, I think we're done here.

From the horse's errr... mouth

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, yes. Hey, remember "the Pill Kills"? Sure you do, because I never stop mining the thing, rich motherlode of comedy gold that it be; sorry peeps, but it's just too funny. And now, I am sad to report, the backpedaling has begun.

After all the fainting, pearl-cluthing and shrieking about "chemical abortions" and "9-day-old babies" (meaning 9-day-old microscopic blastocysts) done by Jill Stanek, SUZANNE and that other useless douche, following the June 7th protest Scott Klusendorf of the "Life Training Institute" said quotes an article by "Serge" (Dr. Rich Poupard) that says:

"Sorry, Jill, you are simply wrong here."

He's one of theirs, and even he doesn't believe it. B-b-but w-w-whaaat HUH!??

"I've been interested in this topic for a number of years, and have reviewed much of the medical literature on the topic. I often joke that I am probably the only oral and maxillofacial surgeon who subscribes to the journal Contraception, which I do in order to have electronic access to all of their back issues. In short, I have done my homework here, and can say without a doubt that Jill has seriously overstated the evidence we have for a post-fertilization effect from OCs."

He The Poupard article quoted by Klusenorf goes on to explain some of the (duh hello, obvious) reasons that the Pill can't be said to cause chemical abortions, wags a finger and winds things up:

"There is a real controversy regarding this issue, and science does not have all of the answers. Let me state this plainly: anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in "chemical abortions" is simply wrong. They don't. I don't know for sure either. Cool web sites and T-shirts do nothing to change this fact. Pro-lifers who overstate this case are acting very irresponsibly."

Irresponsible fetus fetishists, spreading disinformation: that sound about right to you? Fuckin' A damn straight it does, because we already know that's just what they do. It's interesting to note that when it comes to disinformation, this Scott guy knows whereof he speaks. The purpose of his "Life Institute", which is supported by a motley fundamentalist crew including the ubiquitous Focus on the Family, is to teach anti-choicers how to get their message across:

"Scott Klusendorf, LTI president, travels throughout the United States and Canada training pro-life advocates to persuasively defend their views in the public square. He contends that the pro-life message can compete in the marketplace of ideas if properly understood and properly articulated."

Basically a fetus fetishizing spin doctor, in other words, and even he couldn't work with this "Pill Kills" thing (as indicated by his agreement with the article he posted)*. To anyone with a functioning brainstem this would be proof positive that "the Pill Kills" is the kind of bullshit that can't be dressed up as anything but -- well, horseshit at best. Hey, look in the comments at the LTI blogpost -- there's Granny Grump, aka Crazy Christina of the 30-day prayer assault, and even that whackadoo isn't buying it. But don't be surprised if a few voices in the wilderness dig in their heels and insist on continuing along this path... and I'll be right behind them, cheering them on.

*UPDATE (June 19): Scott dropped by the combox to inform me that the article I quote and link to wasn't actually written by him, but rather by someone named "Serge" (Dr. Rich Poupard). Scott reproduced it as an opinion he concurs with. I stand corrected, and edited as indicated.

NIE spin

Huh?!Cute headline. I wonder how much it cost?

Saudi spin

Hoho! Someone's been watching Fox News. Just before a visit to the UK, Saudi King Abdullah deftly deflected the world's attention from planned demonstrations against the kingdom's abysmal human rights record by accusing the Brits of not doing enough about terrorism. Huh?! What?!

"Before Abdullah arrived on Monday, he accused Britain of failing to act on intelligence that might have prevented the 2005 London transit bombings, touching off debate about the kingdom's response to terror at the start of the first state visit by a Saudi king in two decades." [...]

"I believe that most countries are not taking this issue too seriously, including, unfortunately, Great Britain," he said through a translator. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain, but unfortunately no action was taken and it may have been able to avert the tragedy."

Well allrighty, then! Clearly irony is alive and well in the House of Saud. Nobody's taking terrorism seriously except the Saudis -- I suppose King Abdullah could be right, just not for the reason he thinks he is.

In other news -- oh look! Over there! Shiny jingly jangly car keys!

Update: Fisk's take.